"RBM" wrote in message

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
bud-- wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Smitty Two wrote:

What are the chances that an older motor on a washing machine or
fridge
could have another ten years of robust life on it, but still
have a trickle of leakage current? I'd not replace an appliance
motor just to
satisfy some pesky device.
And what are the chances that over those ten years, the motor
winding insulation further degrades, and due to a problem with
the EGC the chassis becomes energized? The consensus opinion, as
expressed by the current NEC (which anyone can make a proposal to
modify) is that the safety risk is larger than the cost of
retiring older machinery with greater than 5 ma leakage current.

Cheers, Wayne

Safety risk? The "consensus opinion" is a large helping of b.s.
Here, try this little test. Google is famous for returning 475,000
alleged "hits" on just about any search string. So please link me
to a report of
someone who was electrocuted by a leaky motor on a home appliance,
through incidental contact with the chassis. Hell, I'll settle for
someone who was shocked seriously enough to be frightened into a
doctor visit.

The requirement for refrigerators and freezers in commercial
kitchens to be GFCI protected was because of shocks that occurred
when they weren't GFCI protected (presumably involving a
refrigerator problem and faulty grounding).


Virtually all the exceptions to requirements for GFCI protection
(like refrigerator in garage) were removed from the 2008 NEC. A
couple arguments we
"The permitted leakage current for typical cord and plug connected
equipment is 0.5 ma. The trip range for GFCI protective devices is
4-6 ma. For this utilization equipment to trip the GFCI device, it
would have 8 to 12 times the leakage current permitted by the
product standard."
and
"The present generation of GFCI devices do not have the problems of
'nuisance tripping' that plagued the earlier devices."

Yeah, the room is full of code junkies, who can cite chapter and
verse but can't substantiate many of the rules with logic or reason.
They worship the NEC for the same reason the Believers worship the
bible: Because it tells them to.

The damn unalterable truth is that electrocutions in the home are
very, very, very rare. I've posted statistics to substantiate that
statement more than once. Yet the junkies continue to insist by
insinuation that if you grind down a neutral blade, snap off a
ground pin, or operate a light switch with a wet hand, you'll almost
certainly be dead in a matter of milliseconds.

I've never heard a single person ever say you'll be "dead ...
milliseconds". But one COULD be in the right circumstances, and that's
enough for me. After all, nearly every fixture cover has a screw that's
exposed metal. You seem to think allowing a certain number of
deaths/injuries from electrocution are acceptable. I can't wait for the
day you get shocked, jerk your arm away, cutting your jugular as you arm
spams and you react in trying to remove yourself, followed by your
muscles clamping harder than rigor, as you slowly sink to the floor,
finally breaking the electricalconnection and continuing to bleed to
death, alone in the laundry room. That' isn't bound to happen either;
but it could.
There ARE a lot of bruises, bumps and other injuries from shock.
Electrocution doesn't always mean death; it can only be a vegetative
state afterwards. Is that stil OK with you? It's not for me. Anything
that helps avoid a safety problem is worth the small amount of effort
that the codes require.

Twayne



What you call "code junkies", in large part are people who work in the
field, and who's jobs require that their work is done according to
the code. Also, most folks on this newsgroup are asking how to do
electrical work in accordance with the Nec. Personally, I don't think
a large number of people get electrocuted from appliances. So what, I
still want to know what the Nec requirements are